Posted on 10/05/2005 10:29:24 AM PDT by new yorker 77
She's polite. Shy. Smart. Modest. Hard-working. Goes to church. Helps the poor. She immediately won the praise of the leader of the Democrats in the Senate. And yet she may end up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card carrying lefties.
I'm exaggerating for effect, of course, but the point is that despite the dramatic tearing of flesh that has gone on in some conservative quarters over the last 48 hours, the indications are that Bush has chosen someone who is extremely culturally conservative. Based on what little we know at this point, he's also chosen someone who favors the Patriot Act, wider presidential authority and an aggressive national security posture.
I understand the disappointment on the right. Conservatives wanted a first-rate legal and ideological gladiator to go do battle with liberals in the Senate. Instead, Bush gave them the Church Lady.
But gladiators don't receive - nor should they expect to be given - any mercy from their opponents. A humble, accomplished, God-fearing woman is a different proposition. Those who know this process understand that the first few hours and days are absolutely critical in shaping the image of the nominee for the public. Thus far, aside from the griping of conservatives, Miers' public image is developing rather favorably and isn't being radically influenced by attacks from left-wing interest groups the way other nominations would have been.
George Will argues this morning that these types of political considerations are unimportant. Qualifications are all that matter and, according to Will, Miers isn't remotely qualified:
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career.
I find this line of reasoning deeply elitist and unpersuasive. Will is setting a standard (years of practice of constitutional reasoning sustained by intense interest) that would exclude a vast number of people who would make perfectly fine justices (including Senators like Orrin Hatch) as well as a number of those who've served ably on the court (including William Rehnquist who spent 16 years in private practice in Arizona and then only 3 years in the Nixon administration before being nominated to the Court).
I also find Will's complete and total deference to constitutional scholarship unsettling. Yes, we want talented, high-caliber appointments to the Court which represents, we should remind ourselves, a co-equal branch of government. It's not at all convincing to say, if you follow Will's logic, that a court made up of nine of the country's most eminent, ivy-league pedigreed constitutional scholars is going to be any better for America than a Court composed of justices who have demonstrable talent of varying legal backgrounds and perspectives. And it is undeniable that Harriet Miers is an accomplished lawyer.
So where does all this leave us? I suspect most Republicans and conservatives will become more comfortable with Miers as we move forward and most Democrats, including Harry Reid, are going to find themselves with an increasing urge to sink her nomination.
One way of doing that is to attack her religious convictions and to imply they make her unfit to serve. This is a very perilous strategy. The other way for the Democrats to derail Miers is to argue that she is unqualified due to a lack of experience and/or intellectual-horsepower. Still a tough case for the Democrats, in my opinion, though certainly a lot easier to make when conservatives are already out there doing it for them.
I keep repeating myself here. I never questioned her competency. Or her knowledge.
The problem is that there is NO evidence to suggest this.
Worse yet, since it sounds like she has done a mind meld with Bush, the evidence is that she's a bleeding heart big government type, which is definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas. I doubt she will turn around and vote that the Federal expansion into education or medicare or disaster relief is now unconstitutional, having spent 10 years with the guy who did these things.
Remember the Bush motto: Watch what we do, not what we say.
Don't bother, God forbid you question anything GWB does. Its pathetic, Its Party over principal.
I hope she turns out fine, but it makes me uneasy that I have to hope considering the legions of better choices there were.
Additionally, given the CFR debacle, immigration sell-out, and other messes GWB is responsible for, I don't think he has the capital he thinks he does to ask everyone to blindly follow him on this.
This is an opportunity of a lifetime and should not be wasted or squandered.
"she may end up making Justices Scalia and Thomas look like a couple of card carrying lefties."
If she is still a virgin, which she may be since she has never been married, she may conceive a child by immaculate conception and give birth to the Messiah, the heavens will open, the world will rejoice in peace and the angles will sing.
The possibilities are infinite!
The policy successes, e.g. the sunset of the AWB, reforming bankruptcy provisions-and I realize that some FReepers might question whether or not that is a success-and the passage of CAFTA, are only peripherally his, while he bears the primary-if not sole-responbility for the failures, e.g McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, etc., etc...
This is terrible. I don't support this nomination of yet, but some of the comments are over the line.
She looks to me to be someone who devoted her life to work and career.
Don't forget - BORDERS!
Well, I think it's PRIMARILY about a vote.
The Supreme Court is a political body, just like any other lawmaking organization. That much is obvious by a couple of hundred years of US history.
The problem has been that the Supreme Court has made a great big pile of decisions that I really don't like in the past 40 years or so, and the only two institutions that can override those decisions and get rid of them are either: (1) the Supreme Court, or (2) the People, through the representatives in 3/4ths of the States, voting to amend the Constitution, after 2/3rds of both houses of the US Congress have voted to present an amendment to the states.
Since just getting past a 40 vote filibuster in the Senate is too hard to manage in most cases, amending the Constitution to overcome bad Supreme Court decisions is not a doable do.
That means that the only way to do it is to get political control of the Supreme Court.
And the only way to do that is to get solid people who agree with you politically, to the core, and can be depended upon to vote your way.
And the only way to do THAT is to get 60 votes in the Senate on a nominee made by the President...which only gets done when a vacancy comes open...which is only once or twice in a generation.
So, the MOST IMPORTANT THING is getting somebody who will vote the right way on the court. Because a vote from a drooling ignoramus that gets the right answer is better than the wrong vote from a genius.
The problem with Miers and Roberts is that we're not SURE. We suspect...we think...we HOPE...but we're not sure.
I am going to assume that this will all turn out fine, vote wise. She'll get on there and be reliably conservative in her votes. The Rule of 5 is what ultimately counts. With her and Roberts on the Court...assuming they both are really social conservatives...the court is 4-4-1. So, Bush needs to make ONE MORE APPOINTMENT, and then the Court is locked as a stalwart conservative court, which can be depended upon to vote the right way and undo the pile of bad decisions, once cases come before them.
They will also be able to be depended upon to strike down anything the liberals do if they manage to get back into power.
I am interested in the victory, not the maneuvers to get there.
Unfortunately, naming Roberts as he did, and now especially Miers, politically damages Bush and the conservative cause. Conservatives needed a FIGHT in order to get mobilized, to prove their NECESSITY to the party. Washington needed to be pitched into a "nuclear winter" from activities in the Senate, right in the runup to 2006. The Democrats are all going to turn out in 2006. But will a bunch of Conservative Republicans?
I myself, in a blue state, have voted for various odious pro-choice Republicans in order to bolster the caucus, because having a Republican majority was important, even if my rep or mayor, senator or governor, was liberal. The caucus would give heft to the Conservative cause by having the rule-making levers even if my local boy is a jackass.
Problem is, the Caucus has HAD that power now, since 2004. And they pretend they don't. They don't enforce party discipline. They won't pass all the President's judicial nominees. They won't close the borders. They won't be fiscally responsible. They won't seem to do ANYTHING I had hoped they do.
So everything was headed towards a showdown in which, finally, we could win a clear victory and keep political momentum.
And W "Lucy" Bush pulls up the football on us.
Fortunately, that gives us a good vote in the Supreme Court (probably). Unfortunately, it leaves us with only 4 votes. And it weakens our political coalition to be able to get the 5th crucial vote. If there are no more retirements until 2008, and Kennedy goes, President Clinton will put in a liberal, it will be a 5-4 liberal court, and that will be all she wrote for the conservative hopes.
This fight was needed, politically, to shore up the base.
Bush wouldn't fight it but relied on "trust me".
Really bad move.
The consolation is that we get a vote on the Supreme Court.
But we would have gotten that anyway.
Right On!
As soon as we start putting party over principle, we are no better than the Democrats!
It makes some of these people seem no different than the Clinton fanatics who explained away even a cigar and stain on a dress.
"looks to me to be someone who devoted her life to work and career."
So what?
So has Hillary Clinton. So has Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg.
I don't understand the reliance on promises and appearances. I want to know what kind of decision maker she is when she is in a position to make important decisions. I still don't know.
The Sun Tzu quote is true.
But I don't think that's what's happening here.
I think that Bush avoided a fight and got a vote on the Supreme Court, but in the process piled the last straw on many in the conservative base.
Which means that his tactic will not be reminiscent of Sun Tzu, but of Pyrrhus.
Yes I know, God forbid I do that. Your comments express my feelings exactly. And there is no evidence to suggest she will be to the right of Scalia or Thomas.
Bush sat on his rear for 8 months and let the left whittle down his approval rating to 40% (up now to 45%) why he sat back and did nothing constructive. And people wonder why this was important.
It does, indeed. Ever since yesterday, I have felt like we have entered the Twilight Zone!
Bush thumbs his nose at his conservative base, makes an ill-advised cronyish nomination, and folks have been calling me a Bush-hater for pointing out the facts.
I love Bush. But I call 'em like I see 'em. Bush is getting some really bad advice because he is surrendering from a position of strength.
Eminent domain... Corporate lawyer.
Looks pretty cut and dried to me.
The first line implies support for the 2nd Amendment, ok that's one for the conservative side.
But the second line implies support for rampant use of eminent domain? You do realize it was corporate lawyers for Pfizer who supported the Kelo land grab? Corporate lawyers can be happy about inequities in the law, as long as they are on the winning side of the inequity.
Who has ever done more??
More income tax cuts than Bush?! More dividend tax cuts? More estate tax cuts?
Who banned more abortions?
Who deployed more national missile defenses?
Who armed more pilots? Heck, that was the **first** ever repeal of a federal gun control (followed closely by the sunsetting of the AWB).
Who killed the ABM treaty? Who killed Kyoto? Who killed the ICC?
You say that you are underwhelmed...but who in history did MORE?!
Who approved more oil drilling permits? Who opened up Alaska to more drilling?
Who made it legal for American civilians to fly their way into Space?
Who put more conservative Judges than Pryor or Janice Rogers Brown onto the federal bench?
Who repealed more OSHA regulations? Who cut the EPA red tape more?
What the heck does it take to overwhelm you?!
I will not not argue with you about what might be, all I know is ~ what is. ;)
Be Ever Vigilant!
Once easy, Illegal Immigration Now Risky:President Bush Builds 12 ft Tall Steel Fence Along Mexican Border From The Pacific Into Arizona, Plus Around Major Populated Areas In Arizona and Texas
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.